TGuru Denim’s application for the below trade mark was opposed by Omega SA under sections 42(b), 44, 58 and 60.
Sections 44 and 58 were quickly decided by the Hearing Officer, noting that she did not consider the applicant’s ‘U’ device to be so similar to the defined Greek letter Omega (the subject of a number of the opponent's registrations) that deception or confusion would be likely. The Hearing Officer also noted that the goods at issue would be carefully selected by consumers, which further reduced the possibility of deception or confusion.
Having pressed that use of the applicant’s trade mark would be contrary to law (sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law), the Hearing Officer remained consistent by dismissing this ground noting that there was not, in her view, likely to be deception or confusion.
Lastly, moving to section 60, the Hearing Officer noted that the ‘evidence provided by the opponent falls far short of demonstrating a reputation for its trade marks within Australia’. Accordingly, there was no case to consider under section 60 and the opposition failed on all grounds.
To view the Office decision, click here.
This article is an extract from Spruson & Ferguson’s monthly summary of Australian Trade Mark Office decisions. You can view the entire month’s summary here.
Principal / Solicitor / Trade Mark Attorney
Litigation Team, Trade Marks Team
Associate / Trade Mark Attorney
Trade Marks Team